Michael Davies: Astute Author of Liturgical Logic

Michael Davies was raised an Anglican. Born in 1936 in Wales, he was brought up in Somerset, although of Welsh descent, converted to Catholicism and attended St. Mary's where he received his degree and began teaching. He also served as a regular soldier in the Somerset Light Infantry during the Malayan emergency when race riots broke out in Kuala Lampur as well as serving in the military during the Suez Crisis, and the EOKA campaign in Cyprus.

It was his research for truth that led him to the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman whom he has written several works on recently, including extensive biographies of the Cardinal and St. John Fisher as well. Michael is a consummate historian in addition to being a liturgical expert. Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand also had a profound effect on Michael, especially the Doctor's masterpiece "The Devastated Vineyard".

Before Davies ever published an important book, he struck up a friendship with the editor and publisher of The Remnant Walter Matt who, through the contact of Father Harry Marchosky, invited Davies to contribute articles to his fledgling publication in 1972, which included serializing his entire book Pope John's Council. The bridge over the pond between America and Western Europe had been established and fortified as a lasting bond ever since for Davies has continued to contribute regular columns for the paper for over 30 years. Michael considered Walter one of his dearest friends and, in fact, Michael Davies gave the memorial tribute to Walter at The Remnant Congress in September 2002.

It was apropos that a priest of God would link these two giants of the Resistance to the New Mass in which Davies was able to provide not only an international flavor to Remnant readers, but be closer to the reality of things in London while traveling throughout four continents. This gifted Catholic writer has over 30 books and booklets published since that time including his defense of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre both well before Ecclesia Dei in 1988 with his 1977 book "Archbishop Lefebvre: The Truth" and his 1990 book "Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty".

While teaching in parochial schools in London, Davies released in 1977 four other works, Cranmer's Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change in which he showed clearly how all that the schismatic Thomas Cranmer had called for and more had been accomplished in the ambiguous reforms of Vatican II and the New Mass of Paul VI which he also treated in his books "The New Mass" and "The Tridentine Mass", both also in 1977. The next year he followed with his work The Roman Rite Destroyed. In 1980 he released "Open Lesson to a Bishop" and "Communion Under Both Kinds: An Ecumenical Surrender".

Throughout the eighties while teaching in Catholic schools in England, he became renowned as a sought-after lecturer and also a skilled debater in defending the Traditional movement as the only solution to the problems cropping up with alarming contradictions to Church doctrine. He easily gained the upper hand on almost every opponent until meeting his match in 2003 when Atila Sinke Guimaraes did challenge Davies' summation of the document Dominus Iesus in which the two giants waged their debate on the pages of The Remnant.

In 1992 he resigned most of his teaching assignments, including his final teaching post in 1995 to write full time and to take on the reins of Una Voce.

He has literally written thousands of articles on the Faith and the liturgical consequences that he is regarded by many as the foremost liturgical lay expert in the English-speaking world, so much so that in 1995 he was appointed president of the International Una Voce Federation which had been founded in 1965 in Norway, of all places. His new duties took him into the inner sanctum of the Vatican such as meeting more than a few times with Cardinal Ratzinger as pictured here. His role as president also took him throughout the world with the specific goal to establish the traditional Latin Mass everywhere as a generous and free option for all Catholics. In recent years he established a Una Voce chapter in Nigeria, which greatly touched his heart. 2500 assisted at the inaugural Latin Mass there and he met with representatives from five dioceses in Africa where each, in their twenties, expressed that there were many who desired the Traditional liturgy.

In 1997 he released the book "Liturgical Shipwreck: 25 Years of the New Mass" in which he illustrated the striking similarity between the Protestant "Reformers" destruction of altars in the 16th century and today's destruction of altars and sanctuaries by pretended reformers. This book was a real eye-opener and destined to become, along with his "Liturgical Revolution" and his recently released "Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II", powerful aids in preserving holy Catholic traditions and informing the Resistance. In the 90's he also released "A Short History of the Roman Mass" to follow up his excellent works "The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue" and "St. Athanasius: Defender of the Faith". He also wrote "The Goldfish Bowl: The Church Since Vatican II" in 1993 and "The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council" in 1997.

In addition to writing and the lecture circuit, one of his first loves is the annual Chartres Pilgrimage each year which he has been a part of for 15 years, generously serving as a tour guide each and every year for The Remnant Tours’ European pilgrimages. Each year at Pentecost, an average of 15,000 pilgrims with a median age of twenty march from the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris to Notre Dame de Chartres, camping out for two nights, and concluding with a Pontifical Mass in the cathedral at Chartres. In 2001, Michael was effective in convincing Cardinal Medina Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, to say the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the pilgrims.

Michael, never one to hold back an opinion no matter on what subject matter, also possesses a brilliant sense of humor, always with a joke to share, thanks to his quick, British wit. He loves to make fun in a respectful way of the quirky American customs that he finds at times truly bizarre and, when one understands from his perspective, one can readily make sense of his logic and wonder why we Americans do most of the things in the way we do. Though culturally different, the one uniting factor between this loquacious Brit and Americans is the focus on upholding the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church and a total commitment to restoring the Traditional Latin Mass of All Ages. In 2003 Michael unexpectedly resigned as president of Una Voce and those whom he had met in his visits to the Philippines, India and Nigeria as well as other places around the globe will greatly miss his impact and presence. Many wondered at the time why he would resign, but it became known that he was diagnosed with cancer and therefore we all commit Michael to our prayers in whatever time God so deigns he remains vigilant with the Church Militant.

Now 68, the boundless energy he had always exhibited is waning as he embraces his own passion in preparation for meeting His Lord and God at the time of the Triune Divinity's choosing. Until then he will continue to write as he is able and we offer our prayers for him and thank God for his writings that have better enabled confused Catholics to more clearly see the subterfuge that has undermined Holy Mother Church.

Here is an excerpt from Davies' "Letter From London" referred to in the article. His view seems quite different from that espoused by certain traditionalists here and the editorial line of the DailyCatholic's writers like Derksen.

In the Catholic Church we have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which has published about three dozen documents since Vatican II clarifying Catholic teaching on a range of topics, such as the “Ordination of Women,” “Procured Abortion,” “The Mystery of the Church,” “Homosexuality,” and “Infant Baptism.” I have read about a dozen of them, and as far as I could see, with my admittedly limited knowledge of theology, they are totally orthodox. It would be very alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox. If documents emanating from the CDF are to be subjected to the judgment of laymen, the we would be in the same position as Protestants. I find the very idea that a Declaration of the CDF approved by the Supreme Pontiff in forma specifica should be criticized by those claiming to be traditional Catholics to be completely incongruous. A traditional Catholic accepts the authoritative doctrinal teaching of the Holy See with an inner assent based on the high supernatural authority of that See, even though such documents are not infallible. It is a characteristic of Catholic liberals that they feel they have the right to call into question any teaching of the Holy See apart from ex cathedra pronouncements. It is, of course, legitimate to make a respectful request for a clarification of documents of the Holy See, as Chris Ferrara did, although he was somewhat unrealistic in putting forward sixty-four questions. Had he put forward six, or better still one or two, he might have received a response. It is an undeniable fact that the chance of letters to anyone in authority in Church or State receiving a reply diminish in proportion to their length.

I find the very idea that a Declaration of the CDF approved by the Supreme Pontiff in forma specifica should be criticized by those claiming to be traditional Catholics to be completely incongruous.

Some have wondered how Davies could make this claim when he wrote a whole book arguing why a particular Vatican II document was incompatable with prior Church teaching, but I think it reflects accurately his attitude toward the pastoral Council. Dietrich von Hildebrand agreed:

"The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not." (Dietrich von Hildebrand, Charitable Anathema)

No--not dissent. But characteristically, the Vatican does not explain how they may be reconciled. So what is really going on?

Michael Davies is a fine traditionalist. And it is true his temperament is more moderate and conciliatory than that of many other traditionalists. That is admirable--though he did get white-hot angry over the FSSP dustup with Rome and wrote a scathing and indignant letter to the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Congregation that would put anything said on this site to shame for bitterness. But that said, for the most part his is a polemical voice of politeness. It is a matter of style, not substance. His critiques of the New Order Church have been devastating and disquieting. He has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cranmer's gradual and insidious imposition of Protestant beliefs on Catholics in England five hundred years ago mirrors almost exactly what is happening today with the Novus Ordo.

It would be very alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox. If documents emanating from the CDF are to be subjected to the judgment of laymen, the we would be in the same position as Protestants. I find the very idea that a Declaration of the CDF approved by the Supreme Pontiff in forma specifica should be criticized by those claiming to be traditional Catholics to be completely incongruous.

You don't give a date for this "Letter from London," but I assume that it is prior to the PBC's document on the salvific nature of the Old Covenant for the Jews.

From Ratisbonne to Reflections, by Peter W. Miller, Contrasting approaches towards the conversion of Jews

Recently, we have also seen the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC), a delegation overseen by Cardinal Ratzinger, release a relativistic statement based the new modes of thought supposedly necessitated by the Second World War. The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible was a work described by Ratzinger as recognizing "the Jewish reading of the Bible as a possible reading."
Building its case on such a basis, Reflections seems to be less of an aberration than the next step in "interreligious progress" with the Jews. But what was so different about this statement to cause such shock and disdain in those usually defending any and every perceived "development"? Was it due to the fact that it came from one of the same American bishops who had shown an inability to be trusted in the most rudimentary of responsibilities? Or was it just too big of a step taken too fast?
Either way, the revolutionary blitzkrieg of ecumenism has not been stopped, but merely forced to re-examine its tactics and try another approach. Perhaps the Reflections document should have been content to focus on the newly-discovered permanence of the Old Covenant, thus laying the groundwork for a future rejection of Christ's mandate to baptize all nations. Such a document would have been defensible (or at least defended) as it would have reiterated something John Paul II had previously taught. In fact, even though most of the usual suspects eventually voiced displeasure with the document, some expressed what can only be classified as reserved disagreement ("it may not have phrased Church teaching in the clearest terms") or even veiled support ("nothing in this document is necessarily new").

On the other hand, if Michael Davies is still writing such stuff even after the 2001 PBC document, then it would be cause for concern, indeed.

You don't give a date for this "Letter from London," but I assume that it is prior to the PBC's document on the salvific nature of the Old Covenant for the Jews.

It should be noted that this document is absolutely not part of the Magisterium in any sense whatsoever. Paul VI at least had the good sense to remove the Magisterial authority of the PBC when he gutted it after the Council.

As for Davies' letter, it appears to be published after the PBC document, coming in March 2001.

On the other hand, if Michael Davies is still writing such stuff even after the 2001 PBC document, then it would be cause for concern, indeed.

Davies actually does seem to touch on this subject:

Mr. Guimaraes tells us that there can be exception to this rule and therefore he does not accept the teaching of Father Feeney. He would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their observance of the Jewish law can be saved. (http://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/davies.htm#fromlondon)

This seems to me to be at about the limits of what can be argued from the Holy Office's 1949 letter to Abp. Cushing (Jews have supernatural faith from the Old Testament, after all).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.